Is there Objective Morality?

[stevevw]

Rats will free trapped rats and even save them some yummy treats. Rats free each other from cages - Nature

this still doesn’t equate to morality. What you are talking about is pro social reciprocal behaviour which provides a survival benefit. Because for example cats from the same animal kingdom will trap mice and birds and rip them apart for entertainment which shows that these are instincts and not morals. Unless you want to start justifying ripping people apart as morally good.

As I've mentioned before, there's no reason to think that there must be an "ought" in there at all.

As I've also mentioned, behavior is just as open to selection as physical traits, and any behavior that increases the likelihood of the individual surviving long enough to pass on genes - such as a social creature behaving in a way that helps the social group survive - is going to be selected for.

Therefore we agree that evolution is not about morality. But it still doesn’t explain why you keep using evolution as an example to explain morality as with the rat example above.

And why shouldn't we see morality as the same thing? Seems likely to me that in a small group of Humans struggling to survive, an individual who acted immorally would put the entire group at risk. Those who acted morally would be of benefit and would help the group survive.

Didn’t you just say that there are no moral “oughts” in evolution? So why are you reverting back to trying to claim morality through evolution. As I said evolution is only explanatory and not a prescription for behaviour.

The question is why is putting the group at risk morally bad. Why is human survival morally good? There is no basis for why it is good outside human opinion. The same group could in different circumstances decide that killing some of its members is morally good because there’s not enough food. They can justify any behaviour based on rationalising its OK because it provides a survival benefit.

There is no objectively right and wrong.
But there is objectively helps the group to survive and objectively makes it harder for the group to survive.

Isn’t that an objective claim. lol I thought you disagreed with objective claims.

I don't see how an entity of any nature can be an abstract concept like moral values.

Thats right because humans just cannot see this or understand it as its beyond them. Morality is an abstract idea and yet it can only apply to humans who are real. We often rely on abstract ideas to understand reality for other things even in science so why is it an issue for morals.

God is more than the moral values that make up the law. He is all knowing, omniscient and omnipresent. In fact the bible talks about his invisible qualities that are seen in his creation so I guess he is everything we see as well, the laws of nature ect. That is exactly how we would expect and need the ultimate cause of morality to be as humans are fallible whereas God is infallible and therefore worthy to be the moral law giver.

"...in any true sense of the world beyond Humans."
In other words, you are saying that evolution can't account for objective morality. That's not a problem for me, since I have never claimed that there is any objective morality. In fact, I have always argued that morality is SUBJECTIVE, and evolution can easily account for that.

But you keep arguing like morality through evolution means something beyond subjective views with your examples of bats and rats. If morality is subjective then it says nothing about what is morally right and wrong. All you’re doing is speaking about likes and dislikes or preferences that have got nothing to do with morality.

But this is an example of how people live like morality is objective because I think most people would like to think they have something real and meaningful to say when they make moral claims. Saying that bats and rats are acting moral is making objective claims about morality as otherwise your claims mean nothing if your not making truth claims beyond your personal opinion. See how your arguements will only work if you treat morals as objective.

Well, the bats won't help those individuals who beg for food but refuse to give it when they are begged. Sounds like the bats have some kind of morality if they decide, "Hey, that guy's a greedy one. He takes food from others, but he never helps out when he's asked! So let's stop helping him!"

I think your reading a lot into animal behaviour and you are not an expert. First there have been no findings that animals have morals like humans. But regardless didn't you argue above that there's no reason to think that there must be an "ought" in there at all. If there are no 'oughts' in evolutionary behaviour then there are no morals at all.

Nevertheless even if we go with your example of bats sharing reciprocally this is not about morality but rather instinctual pro-social behaviour. Because morality is also about helping those who don't reciprocate and in fact this is what truly distinguishes morality from other behaviour because its doing good even if you don't benefit.

It's almost like the morality of other species that do not face the same social requirements as us turns out rather different....

Like I said I don't think your an expert on animal behaviour and this is just your opinion which says nothing about the facts of the matter. Your now trying to justify all sorts of behaviour under morality to mmake your case and we have lost the basis for determining whats what.

This is argument from popularity. It's not a valid line of reasoning.
Just because a moral viewpoint is widespread, does not make it objective.

But that’s not what I argued. I'm not arguing from popularity at all. I am arguing from logic about how a moral value is necessary and therefore cannot be denied like you cannot find the truth of a matter without the moral value of ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’.

It would be like trying to hold a court hearing without the moral values of ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’ being acknowledged and used a the rule and guide. Without these morals the court room would descend into a circus and people could just make up all sorts of lies.

Therefore ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’ are necessary independent standards that cannot be denied by subjective opinion if we want to have a coherent and meaning discussion in finding the truth of a matter.

Which is perfectly explainable through evolution - we have evolved that kind of moral behaviour because killing babies is harmful to our social units.

You keep forgetting that evolution doesn’t ground morals. It only explains how we got morality. It doesn’t prescribe why something is wrong.

For example who says we ought to not torture babies. If the answer is because killing babies is harmful to our social units then we can ask “who says that harming social units is morally wrong”. If harming social units threatens human survival we can then ask “who says human survival is morally good” etc. etc. There is no independent grounding of morals under human opinion through evolution.

I've have presented an explanation that covers everything. Your claim that it's the truth is not supported.

Of course it’s supported because it’s self-supporting. Like I said if you want to find the truth of a matter it logically follows that you must have the moral value of ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’ as a necessity regardless of subjective views. The point is people act like there are moral truths because there is no other way for them to make moral claims and be taken seriously.

How is saying eating chocolate cake morally good a serious claim because thats exactly what subjective morality is like. Yet people make moral claims and want to be taken seriously so they have no choice but to appeal to a truth beyond themselves (beyond their likes and dislikes) to make sense.

You've not presented anything that can't be explained with subjective morality.

Ive given ample examples such as above. You now need to explain how you can treat those necessary moral examples as subjective without descending into a meaningless mess in those moral situations I have given.

I don't see why subjective opinions would carry no weight. My husband has said things to me using subjective arguments that have changed my mind.

So I honestly don't understand why you think that subjective means "it's just an opinion, so who cares."

So what basis did your husband use to change your mind? If it was just his opinion then you have not based your change of mind on a very good reason because how do you know he was right. Maybe you allowed your feelings to get in the way.

But if he used some independent facts to convince you then this is an objective support and not subjective. I fail to see how someone can convince another person with subjective opinions which have no grounding in facts. Maybe it was his agreement style lol.

 

[o_mlly]

True, but that must be shown, and it hasn't been in this case.

Unless the poster actually experienced (as a witness; not as a participant, one hopes) the act that caused the "repulsion" then he did not see, taste, feel, hear or smell the act. What repulsed him was the idea and what caused the repulsion was common sense. Common sense is the 6th and integrating sense that all share. Ergo, the objective definition is the preferred one.

It is roughly spherical. It is, obviously, not a perfect sphere.

"Spherical" means shaped like a sphere. Why do you dodge the question?

The point is that either "the earth is spherical in shape" and "rape is immoral" are both objective claims or neither are.

 

[stevevw]

You're missing the point I am making. Surviving is obviously preferrable to not surviving (although I have had arguments that that is not necessarily true - go figure).

Did you see the giveaway here that uses subjective morality and then slips in an objective claim which makes my point that humans cannot help but appeal to objective morals in real life situations.

First you claim how is survival is not preferable to not surviving. But a "preference" is subjective so it says nothing about the truth of you claim that survival is really morally good. It’s just an opinion. Then you made a sort of objective claim that arguments not supporting your subjecting claim that human survival is preferable by quipping "go figure" like who on earth would think that, they must be wrong.

So you claimed subjectively that survival is an objective choice without any independent evidence.

So survival is good. So what works to keep us alive and passing on our genes we have classed as 'good' in that sense.

Then another objective claim thrown in that survival is good. Is that your opinion or not. You haven’t qualified this at all. See how objective morality is assumed and people cannot help doing it. So you have already assumed your premise is objectively right before you make your conclusion.

But that, as I said very recently upstream, does not directly equate to 'survival is good' in a moral sense.

OK but you have still made some opinionated claims like they are objective claims above.

To mention the bats once more: They will exhibit reciprocal altruism in feeding which is good for their overall survival. But there is no way that you can describe their actions in terms of morality.

I agree as descriptions only tell us how and not why something is morally right or wrong.

Because reciprocal altruism isn't a morally based process. It's genetically determined as a means to survive.

I agree once again but am wondering if you are assuming the bats behaviour is altruistic and not pro-social reciprocal behaviour like other animals do (you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours kind of thing).

Morality is a human construct. Which more often than not is based on deep seated feeling of what is good and what isn't. And those feelings are, to use a term I've used before, the result of a roll of the genetic dice.

This is where I disagree. First feelings cannot determine what is right or wrong morally. Feelings are very arbitrary. Even if they may explain morality they still cannot account for why something is wrong. I feel that being nice is good. Why is being nice good, what’s the basis for it being good.

The basis is because it helps people get along. But who says getting along is good. Getting along is good because it helps have a peaceful and happy society. Who says a peaceful and happy society is good. A peaceful and happy society is good because it doesn’t destroy humans. But who said not destroying humans is good etc. etc.

If we look at a nation like China which has strict communist rule which dictates how people live. They have little choice but to get along and maintain a version of peace which is very disempowering. They achieve a similar outcome but through what we would say is immoral grounds.

So we now equate reciprocal altruism as a moral good. Although it's generally couched in terms such as 'the golden rule' or 'do unto other...' etc.

I think you lost me at the beginning with some assumed and unsupported premises. Not sure we are even talking about altruism in the true sense and rather some pro-social behaviour that is geared at survival. Nevertheless none of this tells us why something is wrong, why we ought to behave that way.

I don't care how we describe it. I know where it came from and how it evolved.

But knowing where it came from and how it evolved says nothing about why is is wrong. Its only descriptive and not prescriptive.

 

[Ken-1122]

The point is that either "the earth is spherical in shape" and "rape is immoral" are both objective claims or neither are.

Why must both claims be objective? Why can't one be objective, and the other subjective?

 

[stevevw]

That's a fair point. If morality is subjective then why is there a sense that we are 'improving' our moral views. If morality is objective then it could be argued that we are constantly approaching some moral ideal.

I think that the hard wired concept of what was good (that which worked) has been changing since we became more civilised (in the original meaning of the term). So we don't abandon the elderly. We don't make young children work long hours. Neither is necessary in the sense that it was in the past. So we're changing from a more instinctive application of concepts which led us to moral rules to a more modern one. It's a sense of realising 'Hey, it doesn't actually have to be like this any more'.

I agree up until this point but I feel that moral truths like math has always been there and we are just discovering them through time with greater understanding. It’s almost a Buddhist thing where we are enlightened morally. Of course I would say that it is the Truth of Christ that enlightens us to moral truths and this is beyond human subjective opinion but thats another debate.

But I think we also have this bad side of us which can deny the moral truth and it’s a constant battle between our good and bad sides. That doesn’t mean morals change and are subjective outside humans. It just means we can have a hard time finding the moral truths because of misunderstandings and our ability to deny or blur the truth as well.

Like slavery I don't think the truth that humans life was sacred has ever changed. But a mixture of a misunderstanding that some humans were of less value and the motivation to make money and have power added up to making slavery acceptable for some.

If a species lives long enough then it will go through changes as the environment changes. The changes aren't 'good' in themselves. They are simply a better fit. So if you've gone from a warm climate to a cold one then lots of fur is then 'good'. But not in objective sense that lots of fur is better than very little. I think morality might be like that. It's always a good fit for the environment in which we find ourselves, so we'll always consider it to be 'better' than it was.

This is where I disagree. For evolution it may be about environmental fit. But the basis for measuring morals is wrong because we can rationalise what is morally good by what helps fit environments and that could be anything because humans are arbitrarily determining what is best. It may seem good when it’s all about getting along. But what happens when its dog eat dog to survive because theres not enough for everyone.

Plus your example about having fur to keep you warm reminds me of Sam Harris's moral logic. It could be argued that having fur to keep you warm is morally good because it keeps you healthy and that helps you survive.

But this is another poor basis for morality as these are all about humans determining what is good or bad subjectively. What may be morally good for human health/wellbeing can also be subjective. The basis for morality has to be outside humans so we can avoid the biases, and skewing of moral truths that should stand independent as humans are fallible.

 

[o_mlly]

If I was to say that harm should be avoided wherever possible, then that would disappoint a lot of people who enjoy being spanked.

Particular:

If I was to say that harm should be avoided wherever possible the earth is spherical, then that would disappoint a lot of people who enjoy being spanked flat earthers.​

General:

If I were to say something rational then that would disappoint a lot of irrational people.​

Based on my definition of "rational":

ra·tion·al

/ˈraSH(ə)n(ə)l/

adjective: rational

1.1 People who believe as I do.​

 

[Bradskii]

The basis is because it helps people get along. But who says getting along is good. Getting along is good because it helps have a peaceful and happy society. Who says a peaceful and happy society is good. A peaceful and happy society is good because it doesn’t destroy humans. But who said not destroying humans is good etc. etc.

Well, I guess that if you don't think that surviving is objectively better compared to not surviving then none of this will make any sense. And it would be a waste of my time explaining any further.

Thanks for your input.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree up until this point but I feel that moral truths like math has always been there...

Moral truths like maths?

It could be said that some people aren't on the same page when discussing something. You aren't even reading the same book. Heck, you aren't even in the same library as me.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well, I guess that if you don't think that surviving is objectively better compared to not surviving then none of this will make any sense.

Certainly I prefer being alive to being dead. But if we're looking for something objective, we want it to be divorced from anyone's preference or indeed from human preference altogether.

 

[Bradskii]

Certainly I prefer being alive to being dead. But if we're looking for something objective, we want it to be divorced from anyone's preference or indeed from human preference altogether.

Every living organism since the year dot has done its best to survive. The ones that might have emerged that had no mechanism for doing so didn't obviously make it. Which leaves us with a 100% guarantee that everything else does. But I don't think bacteria, for example, have a preference for existence. No more then they have a preference to metabolise food. No more than a flower has a preference to turn to the sun. No more than we have a preference for removing our hand from a hot plate.

If someone says they're going to shoot you then you can say that you have a preference not to be shot. But it's as meaningless as saying that you prefer to breathe in and out now and then.

If you're not here - if you haven't survived, then there's nothing to discuss as regards the human condition as it relates to you. There's nothing to discuss as to your sense of morality. Subjective or objective views are meaningless as far as you are concerned if you're not here to have them. You can dig as deep as you want but if you don't actually exist then it's meaningless. We have to be here to work out how morality concerns us. So existence is the rock bottom requirement.

The desire to survive is an objective fact. If you can't call existing as opposed to dieing 'good' as a basis for whatever follows then I'm at a loss to see how anything can sensibly be discussed.

 

[Bradskii]

Certainly I prefer being alive to being dead. But if we're looking for something objective, we want it to be divorced from anyone's preference or indeed from human preference altogether.

I want to add to that last post to re-emphasise why I'm heading in this direction.

That which helped us survive, because of that very fact, we have termed 'good'. And to illustrate...imagine you're in a Castaway situation a la Tom Hanks. But the island you land on has no water, no food and no shelter. I think we'd reasonably describe that as being a bad situation. But you build a raft and manage to move to another island which has plenty of everything you need. Is there any way we couldn't describe that as good?

So having water available is good. Because it enables us to survive. Whatever your 'preference' might be (and it's to find water), having it is good compared to not having it. Objectively so.

And if there are two of you, one with access to water and one with access to food, then sharing those resources can also be termed good. Because if you don't, you'll both die. And is there anyone who would say that that isn't a bad result compared to surviving? Objectively so?

 

[essentialsaltes]

The desire to survive is an objective fact.

I don't see that the will to survive is virtuous. It has no implication of morality.

Things striving to survive is a fact, yes. Like objects falling under gravity or gene frequencies changing over time. But that doesn't make downness or adaptation 'good'. These things are so, but that doesn't imply that they ought to be so.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That which helped us survive, because of that very fact, we have termed 'good'.

I can get that man is the measure of all things. But that hardly suggests to me that these human measures are objective. Quite the opposite. It's good because we called it that?

 

[Kylie]

If your opinion applies to other people then it is not merely subjective. If other people are rationally obliged to agree with your opinion, then it is not merely subjective. Apparently you think this is so given your argument with Abaxvahl. You think he is wrong and he ought to agree with you that slavery is wrong.

In #101 you said that an objective thing is "not something that exists just because someone says so." Does that mean that you think slavery is only wrong because you said so? That it would not be wrong if you had not said so?

My opinion doesn't apply to other people.

If Abaxvahl wants to think that slavery is fine, he can.

But if he starts forcing people to be slaves, then I'm going to have a problem with it. And that is entirely consistent with a subjective view of morality. I've spoken about how empathy guides our morals plenty of times, I'm not going to repeat myself here.

 

[Kylie]

Yes and no. We can never know reality for what it truly is, if there is a truth to it.

Do you hold that belief to be true?

 

[Kylie]

There is nothing with the quality or state of being true, even what I am saying is nonsense.

If I was to take you at your word, then I must conclude that your statement that "There is nothing with the quality or state of being true" is not true, and thus there are things that have the quality or state of being true.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't see that the will to survive is virtuous. It has no implication of morality.

Things striving to survive is a fact, yes. Like objects falling under gravity or gene frequencies changing over time. But that doesn't make downness or adaptation 'good'. These things are so, but that doesn't imply that they ought to be so.

I agree. It's why I keep putting 'good' in scare quotes. Because it's not being used in a moral sense. Which too many people are missing entirely.

If we travel to distant stars then it would be advantageous having a craft that will simulate gravity. But gravity has nothing to do with morality just the same as access to water has nothing to do with it. But having gravity on that 'ship will be good as opposed to not having it just as having water on the island will be good as opposed to not having it.

Now there's no way we'd formulate a system of morality just based on whether either of these things are available or not. It's just good if we've got them and bad if we don't. But what happens if someone had access to water and shared it? Or had access to gravity in some way and allowed you to share it? Then we would be able to develop a concept of morality. Someone sharing either would be good in a moral sense.

So it's 'good' that we have water. And if someone has access to water and we don't then there's an argument that says it would be beneficial to share. That the other person ought to share. Because if she doesn't share the water and you don't share the food then you both die.

If you don't think that dieing is bad then there's no ought.

 

[Bradskii]

I can get that man is the measure of all things. But that hardly suggests to me that these human measures are objective. Quite the opposite. It's good because we called it that?

Maybe I should use the term 'beneficial' as I did above rather than putting 'good' in quotes all the time. So how about this:

Survival is beneficial for our species. An objective fact. So that which helps us survive is beneficial. An objective fact. So access to food is beneficial. An objective fact. So if someone has food and I don't, it is beneficial to both of us to share (reciprocal altruism). Not so obvious, but if you read the literature then it's an objective fact as well.

Sharing food is then something which we describe as good - in the moral sense.

 

[Kylie]

this still doesn’t equate to morality. What you are talking about is pro social reciprocal behaviour which provides a survival benefit. Because for example cats from the same animal kingdom will trap mice and birds and rip them apart for entertainment which shows that these are instincts and not morals. Unless you want to start justifying ripping people apart as morally good.

So you think morality means that every single animal must be looking to help out every single other animal?

Therefore we agree that evolution is not about morality. But it still doesn’t explain why you keep using evolution as an example to explain morality as with the rat example above.

What I've said is entirely consistent with subjective morality between members of the same social group.

Why you take that to mean that it must prove objective morality between members outside the same social group is beyond me.

Didn’t you just say that there are no moral “oughts” in evolution? So why are you reverting back to trying to claim morality through evolution. As I said evolution is only explanatory and not a prescription for behaviour.

The question is why is putting the group at risk morally bad. Why is human survival morally good? There is no basis for why it is good outside human opinion. The same group could in different circumstances decide that killing some of its members is morally good because there’s not enough food. They can justify any behaviour based on rationalising its OK because it provides a survival benefit.

I think it was quite clear I was saying there are no objective oughts.

Isn’t that an objective claim. lol I thought you disagreed with objective claims.

Ah yes. Kylie doesn't think there is objective morality, so she isn't allowed to make any objective statements at all! She isn't allowed to believe that it's an objective truth that she is married!

Thats right because humans just cannot see this or understand it as its beyond them. Morality is an abstract idea and yet it can only apply to humans who are real. We often rely on abstract ideas to understand reality for other things even in science so why is it an issue for morals.

God is more than the moral values that make up the law. He is all knowing, omniscient and omnipresent. In fact the bible talks about his invisible qualities that are seen in his creation so I guess he is everything we see as well, the laws of nature ect. That is exactly how we would expect and need the ultimate cause of morality to be as humans are fallible whereas God is infallible and therefore worthy to be the moral law giver.

You don't expect me to find the "God works in mysterious ways" argument to be convincing, do you?

But you keep arguing like morality through evolution means something beyond subjective views with your examples of bats and rats. If morality is subjective then it says nothing about what is morally right and wrong. All you’re doing is speaking about likes and dislikes or preferences that have got nothing to do with morality.

But this is an example of how people live like morality is objective because I think most people would like to think they have something real and meaningful to say when they make moral claims. Saying that bats and rats are acting moral is making objective claims about morality as otherwise your claims mean nothing if your not making truth claims beyond your personal opinion. See how your arguements will only work if you treat morals as objective.

Where in the world do you get such a harsh black and white view of this? You need to learn to see the subtleties of all the shades of grey.

Rats help each other out. This is morality for them. That does not mean that the python must say, "I won't eat the rat because it is immoral." The python is not part of the social group the rats are a part of.

I think your reading a lot into animal behaviour and you are not an expert. First there have been no findings that animals have morals like humans.

Actually, the issue of morality in animals has been investigated. Here's a book by a philosopher who argues that animals do have morality. And this is just from a quick search on Google. there were lots of other results that supported this. https://www.livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html

But regardless didn't you argue above that there's no reason to think that there must be an "ought" in there at all. If there are no 'oughts' in evolutionary behaviour then there are no morals at all.

There are no OBJECTIVE oughts. But there are plenty of subjective ones that apply to individuals in social groups.

Nevertheless even if we go with your example of bats sharing reciprocally this is not about morality but rather instinctual pro-social behaviour. Because morality is also about helping those who don't reciprocate and in fact this is what truly distinguishes morality from other behaviour because its doing good even if you don't benefit.

Morality is about helping those who don't reciprocate? So I guess all of those people who think rapists should just be locked up forever are immoral?

Like I said I don't think your an expert on animal behaviour and this is just your opinion which says nothing about the facts of the matter. Your now trying to justify all sorts of behaviour under morality to mmake your case and we have lost the basis for determining whats what.

Are you seriously saying you disagree with the claim that other animals do not face the same social requirements as us?

You think a herd of zebras on the Serengeti is going to face the same social pressures as people living in New York?

But that’s not what I argued. I'm not arguing from popularity at all. I am arguing from logic about how a moral value is necessary and therefore cannot be denied like you cannot find the truth of a matter without the moral value of ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’.

You have not shown that truth and honesty are moral. You gotta stop acting like you have shown that, because you haven't.

It would be like trying to hold a court hearing without the moral values of ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’ being acknowledged and used a the rule and guide. Without these morals the court room would descend into a circus and people could just make up all sorts of lies.

Courts do not determine morality.

Therefore ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’ are necessary independent standards that cannot be denied by subjective opinion if we want to have a coherent and meaning discussion in finding the truth of a matter.

Perhaps, but since they are not aspects of morality, it doesn't prove that morality is objective.

You keep forgetting that evolution doesn’t ground morals. It only explains how we got morality. It doesn’t prescribe why something is wrong.

For example who says we ought to not torture babies. If the answer is because killing babies is harmful to our social units then we can ask “who says that harming social units is morally wrong”. If harming social units threatens human survival we can then ask “who says human survival is morally good” etc. etc. There is no independent grounding of morals under human opinion through evolution.

Okay, let's do a little thought experiment.

Let's say there was a social group that decided that killing babies was okay. What would happen to this group? They'd die out, wouldn't they? After all, how could it keep going? Each member would get older and older until eventually they died, but where are the new members coming from? They aren't getting any, because every time a baby was born, it would be killed. So the group and it's "It's okay to kill babies" idea would die out.

Now let's look at a group that had the exact opposite idea. Babies should be nurtured. This group will have lots of babies, and will likely grow. This group will last. And so the "Let's nurture babies" idea helps the group survive.

The group that believes that nurturing babies will survive and the group that believes killing babies is right will die out. Thus, I'm sure you can see, the idea that nurturing babies is best is going to become the most common position.

And yes, there is no independent grounding of morality through evolution, but that's fine. Because if there was independent grounding, then that would make it objective, and I'm not arguing for objective morality. But this evolutionary explanation works just fine for SUBJECTIVE morality.

Of course it’s supported because it’s self-supporting. Like I said if you want to find the truth of a matter it logically follows that you must have the moral value of ‘truth’ and ‘honesty’ as a necessity regardless of subjective views.

Again, you are acting like you have shown that truth and honesty are moral values. You have not shown this.

The point is people act like there are moral truths because there is no other way for them to make moral claims and be taken seriously.

Acting like something is objective doesn't mean it IS objective. I've said this many, MANY times.

How is saying eating chocolate cake morally good a serious claim because thats exactly what subjective morality is like. Yet people make moral claims and want to be taken seriously so they have no choice but to appeal to a truth beyond themselves (beyond their likes and dislikes) to make sense.

You think all subjective claims are equivalent now?

Ive given ample examples such as above. You now need to explain how you can treat those necessary moral examples as subjective without descending into a meaningless mess in those moral situations I have given.

And I've addressed them.

So what basis did your husband use to change your mind? If it was just his opinion then you have not based your change of mind on a very good reason because how do you know he was right. Maybe you allowed your feelings to get in the way.

Yes it was just his opinion, but I hardly think a discussion about my sex life is appropriate here.

But if he used some independent facts to convince you then this is an objective support and not subjective. I fail to see how someone can convince another person with subjective opinions which have no grounding in facts. Maybe it was his agreement style lol.

Let's redirect this to a discussion about food and say my husband was trying to get me to try a new food that I had previously been averse to trying. Do you think he's going to pull out charts and say, "As you can see, Kylie, scientific research indicates that this new food is 31.7632% tastier than the food you currently eat." I mean, how would such subjective things be measured?

 

[Kylie]

Unless the poster actually experienced (as a witness; not as a participant, one hopes) the act that caused the "repulsion" then he did not see, taste, feel, hear or smell the act. What repulsed him was the idea and what caused the repulsion was common sense. Common sense is the 6th and integrating sense that all share. Ergo, the objective definition is the preferred one.

I do not think that "common sense" is a sense in the same category as things like touch and smell.

"Spherical" means shaped like a sphere. Why do you dodge the question?

I'm not. I answered it sufficiently.

The point is that either "the earth is spherical in shape" and "rape is immoral" are both objective claims or neither are.

You've given no reason to believe that these claims must both be objective together or subjective together.